Answer:
I haven't studied this, I think, so this is off of what I think it might be, I suppose.
Explanation:
A: If it's widespread, it might be harder to govern everyone rather than if it was more compact. If it's bigger, one center of power in one part might not be able to handle monitoring the entire country as there's al lot of space, so their influence might not be felt throughout the entire country and rather more in the areas closest to it. Like how people who lived in England were seemingly more loyal to the king, but in America, which was an ocean away, more people seemingly felt and expressed their lack of connection to a ruler so far away.
B: If it's wide-spread enough, there might be different ideas of grouping based on it. If a river runs through it, for example, it could lead to a "east of the river" versus "west of the river" difference in how they identify. An example of this is in Italy where the North and South have differences between them or how in the U.S. there had been/is the idea of "The North vs. The South" or even "The North vs. The South vs. The Midwest vs. The West Coast".
Answer:
D vulnerable to attack from warring civilizations.
Explanation:
i checked and got it right
You need to be direct about what u talking about
<span>The populations are already sparse (due to being mainly desert) added to the fact that there is a huge influx of people seeking work oppotunities in the oil industry, from Westerners to Asian communities. This swamps the local population. </span>
